Talk:History of role-playing games

Section move discussion for History of role-playing games
An article that you have been involved with (History of role-playing games) has some content that is proposed to be moved to another article (Dungeons and Dragons controversies). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:History of role-playing games. Thank you. NegativeSector (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Sophistication"?
Not to say it isn't true, but that sounds rather...biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.176.186 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you prefer? "Development"? Percy Snoodle 08:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agreed that it was biased. It basically said White Wolf games were sophisticated and earlier ones were not, which is a minority viewpoint. Since most of the section was about the competition from computer games and Magic, I left it just at decline. DreamGuy (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

History of LARP
Should we discuss any of the extensive history of LARPs prior to 1991 here? See the LARP page Bmorton3 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See History of live-action role-playing games Percy Snoodle 11:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a few notes on early LARPs. Percy Snoodle 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm findin' all sorts of stuff on preD&D RPGs on other pages, the parlour game tradition, the improv theatre tradition, the educational exercise tradition, the theatre games tradition, the model legislature tradition, Early assassin games, the historical re-enactment tradition, the psychodrama tradition, I've been putting it on the Early History part of the history of live-action role-playing games site, but I don't have a good feel for how much is relevant here. Should we spin off an "early history of Role-playing" page maybe for all the pre-D&D stuff, and then just briefly reference it here? Should we put a big list of links to other places at the beginning of the origins section? Bmorton3 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No - Although the "quick" definition from the lead sentence of role-playing game; the lead section goes on to narrow it down to the post-1974 D&D descendants; games of collaborative fantasy storytelling, played for fun rather than to win. The earlier games were games, and they were role-playing - but they weren't role-playing games, if only because they didn't involve collaborative storytelling and in many cases had "winners".  A fuller discussion of them would be well-placed on role-playing instead of role-playing games, I'd say; they only merit a few paragraphs here in the origins section.
 * This touches on the points made during the hyphenation debate; it might be appropriate to call the modern post-D&D games "roleplaying games" while the earlier games were "role-playing games"; but unfortunately there wasn't a clear consensus to go down that road. Percy Snoodle 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does the lead section of role-playing games narrow it to post 1974 D&D descendents? It says "rarely played to win" which is right, think of Kobolds ate my baby, and it sure doesn't want to limit it to "fantasy" games or the genre section doesn't make sense. Some earlier games were games that involved role-playing but not role-playing games, like you say, but others look like full on "roleplaying games." "Theatre Games" often involve collaborative storytelling, and de-emphasize who wins at the end of the night. A medieval party where all the nobles decide to dress as and pretend to be ancient Greeks, is a LARP in just the sense your talking about (including collaborative storytelling and little emphasis on winning). If LARPs and Freeform count as varieties of RPG, then its hard to see how lots of things prior to D&D don't count as varieties of LARPs and Freeform ... D&D is a hugely important chapter in the history of RPGs but I just can't see how it is the beginning ... Bmorton3 19:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We're running into problems with confusing terms, here; sorry. Small-f fantasy includes sci-fi and all that lot as well as big-F fantasy; it's just "non-mundane fiction", and that's the sense I meant it in when I said "collaborative fantasy storytelling" - a bad choice of phrase, sorry.
 * Regarding the narrowing to post-1974 games, I think it comes down to two things, which form the first two sentences of the main article:
 * "A role-playing game (RPG, often roleplaying game) is a type of game in which players assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories." This thread of RPGs is inherited from earlier theatre-style parlour games.
 * "Gameplay progresses according to a predetermined system of rules and guidelines, within which players may improvise freely" It is the "predetermined system of rules and guidelines" which are inherited from wargames; they were largely lacking in the earlier games
 * It was the innovation of combining the two threads which marks the beginning of modern RPGs. That happened in 1974, so those two sentences narrow the definition on role-playing game to post-1974 games.
 * Modern non-freeform LARPs generally inherit many of their rules from non-live RPGs; they have stats for their PCs, which is definitely a wargame inheritee. Freeform games are a special case; most of the extant ones are LARPs which have shed their rules, rather than ancient greek games which are still running thousands of years later; it's certainly worth noting their similarity to earlier role-playing traditions on History of live action role-playing games.  While it's accurate to describe these earlier as "games of role-playing", it's inacccurate to call them "role-playing game" - at least with the twofold definition above.  As such, although D&D isn't the beginning of "games involving role-playing", it is the beginning of "role-playing games".

Exactly what counts as an RPG, and what counts as "predetermined systems of rules and guidelines" is a theory question. When medievals put on a ancient greek theme party, they did establish a pre-determined system of rules and guidelines, it was just a lot looser than the ones we use now. When the Model League of Nations were set up in the 1920's they had even more elaborate predetemined systems of rules and guidelines than most LARPs use now. Many traditions of roleplaying weren't aiming at big F or small f fantasy, but at "mundane" fiction, historical reenactment, mock trials, even the theatre games went for mundane fiction as well as fantastic (and historical is one of the genres listed on the RPG main page at the moment). The story you tell is correct for tabletop games, and tabletop RPGs have certainly influenced LARPs (especially White Wolf style) since the rise of tabletop, but it just isn't the full story. Look at the assassin-style games. They were played prior to 1974, they became popular in the early 80's but didn't adopt many tabletop RPG conventions, like character stats. Look at other LARP genres, Espionage LARPs borrowed assassin rules rather than tabletop, and often borrowed from other 70's genres like Midnight Madness or treasure hunts. Dagohir, doesn't borrow stats, but borrows from SCA live action combat rules. Tabletop is one of the influences on LARPS since the 70s, but it just isn't a defining feature. Whose Line Is It Anyway is a modern LARP (80s and 90s) and Theater Sports leagues are still going strong, and neither has hardly any influence from tabletop RPGs. But I don't think we are disagreeing on the facts, I think we are disagreeing on the theory question of exactly what the difference between a "game involving roleplaying" and a "roleplaying game" is, and thats a definitional matter and a pretty thorny one.Bmorton3 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - that's definitely where our disagreement seems to stem from. To try to answer your points:  I think "rules and guidelines" may need tightening; I'm trying to refer to things like use of statistics or action resolution, rather than "don't get carried away and punch someone", which I agree could count under the current definition.  As I understand it, the MUN has a great many rules, but most apply in-game; there aren't any rules governing characters' abilities.  It's these rules governing representation of characters and their capabilities to which I refer, and they're present in all but the most freeform of RPGs, but absent in historical reenactment, mock trials and theatre games, whose rules only speak about what characters are permitted to do, rather than what they're capable of.  I'll see whether I can come up with a reference which explains the distinction I'm trying to make; I'd be interested to see what it says about the subject in "role-taking vs. role-playing".  Percy Snoodle 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

MUN does have rules governing the abilities of the character portraried, one character is parlimentarian, or is head of such and such committee, and another is not, its just that these rules are meant to simulate the situation. If you think the key difference is the presence of rules simulating the abilities of the characters in the diagetic situation, then you seem to be advancing a position called simulationism in the GNS Theory, it is very popular position, but it is a POV, and a big part of the theory work of the Forge has been to point out that at least 2 other POV's are equally deserving of being considered in regards to RPGs. I'm not really sure what the "permitted to do" vs "capable of" distinction means when playing a game, or following a set of rules of some other sort. Is a rook not permitted to move diagonally or not capable of it in chess? Is my Str 10 wizard not capable of lifting a 600lb rock, or simply not permitted to by the rules of the game? My SCA persona is not capable of dancing 16th century italian dances because of his dates, but he is certainly permitted to, the rules of SCA personae seem to govern both what they are permitted to do and capable of doing. One of my temptations is to say that lots and lots of LARPs just don't count as RPGs (after all LARP doesn't even require that it be a game ...), but if we're counting all LARPs as RPGs, then it is hard to exclude lots of LARPs that aren't very influenced by tabletop RPGs. Bmorton3 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Having looked up diegetic :-) I think that is a good way of explaining it. Consider this world: Our capabilities are determined by the world's rules - physics, etc.. - but what is permitted is determined only by other people.  Similarly, in a role-playing game, capabilities are non-diegetic - they are determined by the game's rules; whereas what is permitted is diegetic - they are determined by the game world's occupants.  In some ways what distinguishes modern RPGs from earlier games isn't the presence of such rules, but that they make the distinction possible by explicitly having a "game world" with its own rules, light though they may be.  Earlier games of role-playing implicitly took place in a game-world copy of our own, but either didn't separate its rules from those of our own (in the case of recreations and early LARPs) or didn't enforce any real game-world rules (theatre and storytelling games).  One could argue that modern role-playing games - even freeform LARPs - do make this distinction: even though in freeform LARPs the game-world ruleset may be practically empty, it is empty through choice. Percy Snoodle 16:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC); continues later


 * Rats, I think you may be in danger of convincing me, but I also think we are treading on the toes of NOR, here. Are you aware of a source that has defined RPGs this way?  Its pretty close to the Meilahti School approach, but thats only 4 years old and is probably POV.  Also notice that this would define fantasy into RPGs, a collaborative stroy that took place in a world like ours wouldn't need a capabilities/permitted distinction, because the capabilities would be set by the world.  Bmorton3 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The capabilities would be the same as our world, but they would be set that way by choice rather than simply being taken for granted as previously happened. By analogy with object-oriented programming, we could look at it this way:

interface WhatIsPossible { permissions; capabilities; }       class EarlyGame implements WhatIsPossible { characterisation; setting; plot; permissions determined by setting capabilities taken for granted }       class Wargame implements WhatIsPossible { rules system; permissions taken for granted capabilities determined by rules system }       class ModernRolePlayingGame extends EarlyGame, Wargame implements WhatIsPossible { characterisation; setting; plot; rules system; permissions determined by setting capabilities determined by rules system }


 * I hope that makes sense. A modern RPG could choose a rules system of "whatever you want to do, you can" thereby making characters capable of anything, but it would have explicitly assigned that system to its "rules system" box.  It's a little clumsy - obviously wargames have setting of a sort, but it's not a fully-developed one like those of the early games or modern RPGs.
 * Sorry it been too long since I've programmed, and I never used notation similar to that, I can't follow you. Bmorton3 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessarily a simulationist POV to regard this distinction as important - indeed defining, though it accords well with simulationist play. A narrativist player welcomes rules that determine capabilities because they help suspension of disbelief, while a gamist player welcomes them because they keep play fair - just as a simulationist player welcomes them because they can be used for authenticity. Percy Snoodle 16:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But a gamist player only needs fair rules, not the distinction between capable and permissible, indeed its only what is permissible that matters. Likewise a narrativist needs rules that help suspension of disbelief but it doesn't matter if the rules regulate the diagetic or non-diagetic frame (in fact Immersionists argue that non-diagetic rules interfere with suspension of disbelief inherently, see the Turku stuff). Everybody needs rules, but you only need the rules to simulate the capabilities of characters, if the world is different from ours or simulation is a major goal. Suppose you had a gm-ful play style, and used the rules to moderate which participants claims are authoritative in the game world, without having any rules to moderate the game world itself (Think of the Matrix system, or The Extraordinary Adventurers of Baron von Munchausen). Here there would be no capable/permitted distinction, everything is done at the permitted level. Instead of deciding before hand how to model characters in the world, you decide beforehand how to decide who is permitted to make authoritative claims about what a character can and can't do. See also the lumpley principle Bmorton3 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But game rules don't determine what is permissible; that's the key. The rules - the game system - only determines what game elements are capable of; it is the setting that determines what is permitted.  Early games had setting, but no explicit system.  Modern games have both, even if the system is rules-light or even rules-absent.  They inherit setting from early games, and system from wargames - even though they have run a long way from wargames with their systems. Percy Snoodle 17:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How many indents is that? Now I think we disagree, system and setting aren't nearly so easily split as that, for one thing setting is an element of system, its part of system, or another system often determines what is permissible, think of the IIEE order. Once I take my hand off a piece in chess I am no longer permitted to move it to another location it would be capable of. Once the DM declares the results of my roll I am no longer permitted to use my charcters' luck Domain power in 3ED&D, and that is a rule system issue see the Lumpley Principle. Early games did have systems, especially as that term is used in Forge theory or in the Lumpley principle, (or Process theory). They didn't have the kind of abstract metaphysics that tabletop inherited from wargames, but Model UN's are even simulationist in purpose, and use rule and system to try to model a particular situation. In Forge vocab, Model UN's focus on the situation component instead of the character or setting component's like early D&D did, but so does Call of Cthulhu, or a modern interactive murder mystery. Bmorton3 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Too many indents - I've reindented the discussion; hope it still flows right. I agree that system and setting are often blurred - for instance, are D&D mages prohibited from using large metal weaponry socially or by the physics of magic? - but the important thing is that the games do have both, even if you can't necessarily tell the difference.  The Lumpley principle uses a different definition of System - a clumsy one, IMO, as evidenced by the need to qualify it with "including but not limited to 'the rules'".  The early games may have had a system of a sort, but I doubt it was ever explicitly thought of; rather, it was taken for granted much as wargames took their setting for granted rather than exploring them. Percy Snoodle 09:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In 3ED&D its explicit that the limitation is about the physics of magic (and its now only partial) Bmorton3 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I got a pre-print of an article on the History of RPGs that is going to be published soon yesterday, and I am now convinced that our argument as fascinating as it is, and frankly much of the work we've been doing here and in History of Live-Action Roleplaying is OR. Look at  No Original Research.  A theory about what makes something count or not count as an RPG is OR unless you can find it in a verifiable source, and I think the Meilahti School is as close as you'll find that that is clearly POV.  My insistance that theatre games are part of the history of LARPs is OR, the history of LARP stuff and the theatre game stuff areboth are in print, but no one has put the two together before in a verifiable source that I can find.  Sigh.  The latest verifiable source I can find on tabletop History is Mackay's book, the Knutepunkt LARP stuff surely counts as verifiable (but often POV), so I suppose we should confine ourselves to those. Bmorton3 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, our debate is definitely OR - but that's OK so long as we keep it to the talk pages. I don't think anyone will argue that theatre games aren't part of the history of LARP and indeed all RPGs, it just comes down to whether they're precursors or genuine RPGs.  Either way, since there is a separate article on History of live-action role-playing games, the content on this page only really needs to be a brief summary of the early games with more detail there.
 * I don't think anyone will argue that Theatre Games aren't part of the history of LARP, but I've never seen anyone argue for it in print either. As for not being part of the history of tabletop... I can see how someone would argue against that.  I can't find evidence that any of the early designers ever played theatre games, altough it seems likely. Bmorton3 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope I haven't given the impression that I don't think the early games "count" - it's rather that I see two things, both of which could sensibly be called role-playing games - the older tradition, and the modern games - and I think the articles here on RPGs are talking about the latter. I'm not trying to construct a theory which will let me tell them apart, but nor do I think that the two should be conflated.  I think the modern games should have the role-playing game article, because that's what people generally mean by the term.  It would be great if more detail on the older games could be put into another section on role-playing. Percy Snoodle 15:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you like, you could say that the articles are about role-playing games in the third, narrow sense not about the first sense. Percy Snoodle 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a great reference, except if that's what we mean then LARP and Free-form are explicitly excluded and we need to restructure the History and the main RPG page. Note there are 3 levels here, sense one includes all the older stuff, sense 2 is what is used on the main page, and sense 3 is tabletop only.  Actually that whole quote might be worthwhile on the main RPG page. Bmorton3 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all LARPS are excluded. The definition used there is descriptive, not proscriptive, and modern LARPs do meet the criteria there. It's only the older games (and perhaps some modern freeforms) that are excluded.  Of the three levels, level 1 is the sense used in the role-playing article and sense 3 (with the addition of modern LARPs) is the sense used in the role-playing game article.  Sense 2 is too vague to really warrant an article. Percy Snoodle 08:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? In the Rilstone article the whole point of distinguishing the 3rd from the 2nd sense is to exclude LARP and computer and PBM. Read the next paragraphs

"It is easy enough to describe a role-playing game in this narrow sense. A group of people sits around a table, with formalized descriptions of imaginary characters on pieces of paper in front of them. There are normally dice on the table, and sometimes even models representing the imaginary characters. Everyone starts talking at once, usually loudly; rolling dice and ignoring the results, and scribbling notes on their 'character sheets'. If an outsider were able to discern what was going on in this hubbub, he would find that it boiled down to a protracted question and answer session between the 'players' and 'referee'. It would not be too much of an imagination to say that the entire role-playing hobby is a series of subtle and complex elaborations of the formula: Referee: 'What do you do now?' Player: 'I do such and such' The outsider would also find that the game occasionally shifted into 'role-playing' in a more conventional sense - the participants improvising conversations between imaginary characters. (In some gaming groups, this 'talking in character' is the be-all and end-all of role-playing games: in others it hardly ever happens.) From this chaos, a more or less well realized story emerges. This story (or the vicarious experience of an imaginary world, which comes to much the same thing) is the purpose of role-playing games. It is much harder to define what is going on, but one possible definition might run as follows: A role-playing game is a formalized verbal interaction between a referee and a player or players, with the intention of producing a narrative. This interaction is such that the fictional character (controlled by the player) has complete or nearly complete freedom of choice within the fictional world (controlled by the referee)." That's a definition of tabletop, and isn't pretending to be otherwise. And "verbal interaction" is one of the key phrases here. Bmorton3 14:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But as I say - it's descriptive, not proscriptive. Modern LARPs have all of that but have an added physical component; If a player wants their character to do somtehing like cast a spell, they say "I cast a spell".  As such, they match his description and are included.  Earlier games lack the "formalized descriptions", so they're excluded.  I'm happy enough for the aricle to start with "modern", but the assumtion is with an article that - unless otherwise stated - it refers to the modern use, so it's not strictly necessary.  I don't think we need worry about the presence of a table - we only ever use ours to hold snacks, but we play the games he's trying to describe. Percy Snoodle 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I've found a reference which supports (albeit tenuously) my position: If you look at the generations of role-playing game, everything pre-D&D is "generation 0"; the first generation of RPG begins with D&D. Percy Snoodle 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That supports the division into everything before D&D and D&D (as does the Rilstone if you read a little further down), but it doesn't support any of the 3 sentences before it (which were mostly consessions to me), or that "acting games" were combined into the mix to create D&D, it does support the SCA stuff though. Bmorton3 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

One tiny, picky point: it's wrong to put an apostrophe in decades, per WP:MOSDATE. Percy Snoodle 09:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, nice catch. BTW the Romans didn't use historical reenactment for military purposes mainly, they used it for parties, and coliseum spectacles.  Also do you have any documentation that historical reenactment didn't become a popular hobby until the 60s?  I know that the SCA didn't start til then, but I'd always thought the revolutionary and civil war hobbists had started earlier, but I can't find documentation either way.  Also, I know we are fighting and bickering some, but it really is nice to have another thoughtful person editing this stuff and double checking me, and I'm sure the product of our conflicts is better than I would produce on my own.  Thanks. Bmorton3 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - I think this discussion has improved the article quite a bit. Thanks for the update on Roman uses; I don't have a source for the 60s comment; in fact I'd misunderstood the situation; it was in the 60s that they started using reenactments for genuine history rather than for recreation. I've updated the page to correct my mistake. Percy Snoodle 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

GURPS 1st Edition cover image?
I have been trying to track down a image of GURPS' first edition cover to replace the one currently in this article, and have been having absolutely no luck. Anyone have the book and can scan the cover, or at least supply the ISBN for this release? —Asatruer 19:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck - It took me quite some time to find the one on this page. It would be nice to have a larger one, so we can enlarge the others a bit.  Percy Snoodle 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found something, the file history for Image:Gurps1.jpg lists that you—Percy—uploaded a first ed cover, which was then updated by Trystero11 on July 9 to the fourth edition cover. I just reverted this so problem solved. Now if only we could get a larger version of the image—Asatruer 20:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

GURPS 1st Edition boxed set (ISBN 1556340516) and an image of the box cover Image:Gurps1edbox.jpg. Do we want to try this new image of the box cover, or keep with the character book cover?—Asatruer 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The box image looks good to me. Percy Snoodle 06:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ars Magica
I have the impression that the Timeline section "The 1990s: Sophistication and decline" should start with a reference to Ars Magica before talking about Vampire, as the emphasis on narration is considered by many to have started with that game, which predates Vampire. Sergi


 * So noted, though it's a little clumsy starting the 1990s with a 1988 game. Percy Snoodle 12:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish support of RPGs?
I read an article somewhere (a few years back) by the Spanish ministry of Education (or whatever it was called) that took a similar position as the Swedish government. Does anyone know anything about this, or where one can find their release? The Jade Knight 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Found a link to it on the Spanish Wikipedia's article: .  Perhaps this should be included in the article?  The Jade Knight 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Be bold. Percy Snoodle 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rome?
I remember reading something about Romans having 20- and 12-sided dice. Are there any official sources that have speculated on the possibility that the Romans played RPGs? Safuman (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Viola Spolin in lead-in pararaph
"...but without the formalised rules which would characterise modern role-playing games.[7] " <---This in itself assumes formalized rules for RP, and immersive, open improvisation. What is meant by "formalized"? Distinction also, as Spolin's Theater Games had formalized rules for teachers (re: ttp://books.google.com/books?id=_Cp-xvnCEgIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=theater+games+for+the+classroom&source=bl&ots=LOqy0qz5RW&sig=qZTVnB8aHzpqZO171txOVk0JNPI&hl=en&ei=ikb5TL6NKIKknAfv_t22CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false )

IMO, as a playtester of the original D&D game 1974, Robert Kuntz, and as a contributer to the D&D game thereafter, I find this is bad research and it needs to be rethought in lieu of meanings, as noted. There was no formulised way to role-play D&D, that was left open to the players (re: those adopting play), and in the original D&D version of the game there can be found no references for how to initiate formalised play, only suggestions that players adopt a role, such as it was with Spolin's "players". Upon further research into her Theater Games for the Classroom (a condensation of her work in the field to that point) you will find absolute rules for teaching play and transferring those rules/guides to the players, more so than what occurred in D&D 1974. This article's phraseology in this area, as I quoted. is misleading and skewed, and as a lead-in provides an assumptive which influences the majority that follows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robilar1 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

GURPS problems fixed
The article claimed that GURPS was the first universal system and that it introduced point-based character creation. Both claims are incorrect. I updated the section to fix this. DreamGuy (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

1970's paragraph just for critical hits?
In a section that describes the early history of role-playing games in broad terms of genre, I think a paragraph about a single game mechanic is out of place. I'd like to delete it, but I'm asking for input before making a change. Here's a link to the section, for your convenience.

"Empire of the Petal Throne, released in 1975, introduced the concept of critical hits. Using these rules, a player who rolls a 20 on a 20 sided die does double the normal damage, and a 20 followed by a 19 or 20 counts as a killing blow. According to creator M.A.R. Barker, "this simulates the 'lucky hit' on a vital organ."[11]"

Blueluck (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Section Move Proposal
I propose that the content 'Controversies' section be moved to the Dungeons and Dragons controversies article. The vast majority of the section focuses on Dungeons and Dragons. I thought that this was supposed to be for all RPGs? The non-D&D controversies can be sprinkled in the other sections. ForTheGrammar (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)