It is a shame that I chose to make a connection between my playing guns as a boy and what I thought of as the elephant in the room, the present state of Gen-Y. This transformed the comments section into politics, which was not the point of the post ... I really wanted to get into the subject of how our earliest experiences as children helps define the kind of DMs we are, what we want out of role-playing and even our limitation as role-players.
No other game produces the variance in approach that table-top RPGs do. I can be lazy or not. I can be vigorous in my worldbuilding or not. I can ask the party to fight for every inch of ground, like this is Iwo Jima, or I can set them up to win. We're locked in philosophical discussions about cheating and what the game company is doing with its public relations.
Axis & Allies? What set of youtubers would gain subscribers arguing that more of us ought to lie and cheat at Settlers of Catan in order to produce a better game? How many amateur game designers are out there inventing and marketing their own versions of RISK? This is a weird game, deeply entrenched in the psyche of the participant ... and as such, the way we played games in our childhood paints a stark picture of what we're like when we take on the mantle of managing other players.
I wanted to talk about that. I still want to talk about that. I came at this game from a very tactile experience of immediate rule-making to solve real problems of gun-users NOT getting into arguments about missing or being dead or what the boundaries were. And those rules worked. For years.
I did not talk about "make-believe" or "fantasy," or what games were played to suit imagination. Imagination was not the subject at hand (sorry Lance), but rather RULE-making. We were kids. We did not have parents to tell us we had to have rules (unlike the current generation). We made our own rules and we liked it.
Because rules stop arguments and let people play.
Let's talk about that.